'Flat' is not correct for a stereo system ?

[LineArray]

Originally Posted by 6.283

Check out slide set, talk and afterthoughts about why flat is not correct in SL's opinion.

Concerning compensation of HRTF i have a simple
question:

Assuming the mastering of a certain recording has been
done using a stereo setup, would we also assume the
mastering engineer would have already accounted for
HRTF during mastering ? Just by aiming for a balanced
recording and "well defined" phantom sources due to his
auditve impression ?

If yes, an additional compensation in the homely speakers
used for reproduction would be an "overcompensation".
Please correct me if i am wrong.

Given the mastering engineer uses the latest "Orion"
with integrated HRTF compensation by a shelving filter,
the recording will sound too bright if reproduced
on a flat speaker at home.

It would take the same "Orion" version to reproduce
the recording in a balanced manner ...

I cannot help myself, but here is something going wrong
IMO. Maybe Mr. Linkwitz uses his own recordings as a
reference ...

That a slightly falling frequency response is preferred by
most listeners seems to be backed from different studies
too, but i am not sure whether this relates to HRTF
compensation when reproducing commercially available
recordings.


Kind Regards

[planet10]

Originally Posted by Jack Caldwell

...a well designed omni like what I'm about to show at RMAF

These?



(from here)

dave

[wowo101]

Concerning the "non flat response" topic, I still suspect SL - as much as I admire him and his work - is on the wrong track here. The explanation for his observations put forward by JohnK, Rudolf and others (that it´s really about off-axis behavior in the HF area) still sounds much more plausible to me than SL´s take on it. The point LineArray is making is - in my book, at least - another convincing argument in the same vein.

The falling response curve people seem to prefer is for all we know a function of absorption and diffusion increasing with frequency in typical listening rooms, so decreasing HF output beyond flat should result in a non-optimal in-room response - if, and again this is in my view the main point of the whole discussion, the off-axis response is well behaved.

Just my 2 cents.

[theresa]

There is always tension between those who want flat and those who want something different. I am torn being a INFP on the Meyer's Briggs and yet knowing that a lot of subjective talk is nonsense (ie. Stereophile). I try to get my speakers as close to flat as possible by design and then tweak the settings on my pre-pro to my liking. As John Kruttke (sp? I think that's his name) has posted on his web sit "Zaph Audio," sound quality can be measured in every aspect and talk about subjective response is mostly due to a lack of understanding of the technology and what the sound indicates as far as measurement (he says its due to laziness, but I think that is too harsh). He is obviously not an INFP but I think what he says results from understanding acoustics. I really do find the whole language of subjectivism revolting what with terms like "air" or "quickness" and so on. Speakers are reproducers, they are not the source so what they are able to reproduce should be as flat as possible starting out in order to deliver all that is on the recording. Perhaps the mix has too much highs or too much bass or perhaps the delay or phase is wrong or perhaps there is a lot of second order distortion giving it that tube sound and therefore you need to adjust those parameters you can in your pre-pro. I personally prefer the sound of tubes, or did when I had a Stereo 70 years ago, yet I know it was not accurate.

[bentoronto]

Let's get something straight: you can't reproduce in your music room in principle (and certainly not in practice) the aural experience of sitting in Carnegie Hall (or anywhere else including your own music room*) with two loudspeakers. You can't reproduce the sound of the studio or the mixing room.

I suspect that means there is no such thing as "flat" if you can't make something sound like something else which is flat.

I wish people would stop fantasizing about engineering "solutions" to psycho-acoustical problems.

Now let's get on with creating systems that we can enjoy by whatever different criteria we have, including "sort of feels to me like Carnegie Hall...." You have to figure out what variables matter in achieving those criteria.

No useful and universal way to define "flat."


*People with long memories will know what kind of demo-proof I am echoing here.

[McCormack]

Originally Posted by theresa

I really do find the whole language of subjectivism revolting what with terms like "air" or "quickness" and so on.

In order to make such a statement, I suspect that this individual has never truly experienced "air" or "quickness" on a music reproduction system.

[gainphile]

Originally Posted by gainphile

SL recently wrote:
Linkwitz-Links

I'm about few thousands kilometers from my speakers so I have yet to build and see/hear this curve for myself. But is it reaaally ??

Well after 3 months I had been back home since and tried this DSS filter on and off. So many times.

But for me, FLAT is the correct response and it sounded most realistic.

I have read SL's slide from the Burning Amp Festival and they make sense. But that is in fact not my experience.

I have to say I'm with JohnK and others. The DSS filter may be Orion-Specific.

My speakers are dipoles as well: S12

[bentoronto]

Originally Posted by gainphile

But for me, FLAT is the correct response and it sounded most realistic.

What do you mean by your term "flat" that you so emphatically endorse as "realistic"?

Certain knobs on your amp pointing to "0" or electrically flat drive coming out of amp or acoustic testing with a mic or testing with 5 mics or equal-loudness to your ear or "stuff sounds like real" or no obnoxious frequencies or some other meaning?

These different senses of "flat" are the result of differing inputs to your speakers. So they are not the same. Right?

[Robh3606]

What do you mean by your term "flat" that you so emphatically endorse as "realistic"?

Why the confusion?? I can understand that a speaker may measure different on axis compared to an average in room response but Flat means Flat. No deviation over the measured range. Here is a speaker that measures very flat in room asside from the bass bump primarilly from the measurement technique. I own a pair of them and they sound very "realistic". Graphic from Stereophile.

Rob

[gainphile]

Originally Posted by bentoronto

What do you mean by your term "flat" that you so emphatically endorse as "realistic"?

Certain knobs on your amp pointing to "0" or electrically flat drive coming out of amp or acoustic testing with a mic or testing with 5 mics or equal-loudness to your ear or "stuff sounds like real" or no obnoxious frequencies or some other meaning?

These different senses of "flat" are the result of differing inputs to your speakers. So they are not the same. Right?

What I meant by flat is speakers measured at design axis, outdoor, non-gating. 1m from the speakers, 2m from the ground plane.

Incidentally if I pink-noise it indoor 1m from design axis it looks like attached. This is the most realistic sounding even when I know the limitations of those dipoles in the tweeter region.

I do agree however with SL that Stereo System = Illusion Engine. Except that for me, it has to be a transducer, not musical instrument. Hence, flat (as per my definition).